Aristotle's Poetics, by Chuck

First a reminder that you can stop at chapter 19 (page 107), and then an apology for the length of this and my inveterate tendency to, as my son says, "geek out."
 
Thesis  Since we usually think of a "thesis" as a position or argument, his most explicit thesis would be that "good" tragedy is distinguishable from "not-good" tragedy and that good tragedy has such-and-such qualities. But more interesting, I think, is a more tacit thesis: Tragedy [which he often generalizes into just "poetry"] is a kind of an art (technē) of representation (or mimesis or imitation) that is distinguishable from others because it is unique in terms of its materials (language in verse), form (a discourse with a plot), the creator (a poet/tragedian) and purpose ("catharsis" and other educational effects). Or as Aristotle says on page 95, "Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various] parts [of the play] [represented] by people acting and not by narration; accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions." These come from Aristotle's four "causes" (as discussed in intro in 3rd full paragraph on p. 88).
     But he also talks about elements--or "features" as they are usually called in contemporary genre theory--that typify the genre ("spectacle, plot, diction, song, and reasoning" 91). And he also identifies what a poem/tragedy represents: "not...human beings but of action and life" 91). And so forth. If you haven't read it, you'll see what I mean.

Summary of reasoning/evidence  Aristotle takes as his field of inquiry (his "genre set"?) actual tragedies and poems that exist, and from that he abstracts distinctions and principles that make tragedy tragedy and make good tragedy good. What I love about Aristotle is that he not only lays down the law but also (usually) backs up his declarations of up with reasoning (Greek is dianoia, or "thought that makes connections and finds coherence", not logos) that answer the "why" question--e..g, it's better to have plots arise be probable (eikos = plausible) than not.

What's cool   

1. The drive for categorization and naming. I would say Aristotle's tacit thesis is especially remarkable, but it is tacit for Aristotle because for him every thing and every technē can be categorized and distinguishable from all other things and technai. In other words, this is not news for Aristotle, but it is relatively new news for Western thought, this idea that from the thousands of particular instances of tragedy, you can abstract a general idea about what defines a tragedy/poem from all other instances of discourse. For you veterans of 542, you know this idea of abstraction is a new one for Western thought that comes out of the literacy revolution in thought and consciousness that begins around Protagoras' time (~490-~420 BCE), is in flux during Plato's (~427 –~347), and is in full swing with Aristotle (384-322). For instance, it was Protagoras, probably, who first made the distinction between stories and arguments/rationale accounts (mythoi and logoi). And the distinguishing, abstracting, naming craze continues to this day.  
2. How contemporary he sounds. I also find very cool is just how contemporary Aristotle sounds, how much like contemporary genre theorists in his quest to find distinguishing sets of characteristics, and how thorough he is. I love the passage in the third full paragraph on 91 where he says,  "the art of representation that uses unaccompanied words or verses (whether it mixes these together or uses one single class of verse form) has to the present day no name. For we have no common name for the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues...." (my italics). He drops it at this point because this is a treatise on poetry, not that other genre set, but I think it's cool that he notices this gap. 
3. Interest in what this kind of discourse does. He doesn't just describe the genre but also as he explains its purpose--he explains what it does and how. (One of our texts is titled What Writing Does and How It Does It.) Of course, there's the famous end he calls "catharsis," but he explains also how this kind of understanding happens. For instance, when he talks about why we delight in "representation" (mimesis) (on page 93, starting at paragraph 3), he says "delight" in representation is something only humans can experience, and for him, what distinguishes humans from animals is what is most important to happiness (eudaimonia); the ability to reason (logos, dianoia), to argue, to reason ethically are other essential distinguishing features. He also says that the pleasurable learning comes from "observing": "For this reason they delight in seeing images, because it comes about that they learn as they observe, and infer what each thing is, e.g. that this person [represents] that one" (93 my italics). This is the pleasure of seeing things coherently, or engaging in dianoia (translated as "reasoning" in this text). The word "observe" is the translation of the Greek verb theorein, from which we get theory, and etymologically is related to a verb meaning " to sit in the farthest seat in an auditorium." Theorein is also used in his definition of "rhetoric": "Let rhetoric be [defined as] the ability, in each particular case, to see [observe, theorein] the available means of persuasion."
4. Interest in genre evolution. Here's a connection to other texts from this week. In a few places, he talks about how genres came into being (e.g., p. 92 and 100, both last paragraph).  What he doesn't do here, and what people like Bazerman will do in later readings, is explain the sociological reasons that a tragedy is called into being--what purposes it served for a specific community at a specific time. I suppose that's because he's most interested in "human nature"; in this sense, he resembles Freud in this week's reading and is much different from most others, particularly Geertz.

Connections  I think I've already overdone the connections, but it seems to me that Aristotle begins the whole genre-study enterprise (or perhaps follows through from the Sophists, in particular Protagoras, and Plato). So I guess he broaches an important question that I think we should examine throughout the semester: Of what use is the study of genres, genre sets, activity systems, and genre theory? I think he does an amazing job of demonstrating the usefulness of genre study and genre awareness. Specifically, when we work hard to make these distinctions, we have to call on or invent new terms, that gives us insight into the nature of a particular discourse but also provides know-how into how discourse works. We do this best not by sitting back and theorizing, but by examining actual texts and abstracting from concrete particulars. (E.g., we can abstract our own values for what's good in students' writing not by sitting back but by looking at students' texts--usually together in a group--and figuring out our own values, which we then communicate to our students-- as in Dynamic Criteria Mapping.) Such terminology allows to see what might have passed by our notice--and it also allows us to "see" in terms of theorein, viewing from afar, reflecting upon. I think that activity makes us better readers of and makers of discourse.